It is not an abuse of the sacrament if there really is mortal sin. Confession can be received as often as its needed.
No. It assuredly may not be received in an unlimited fashion. The presence of sin, even serious, is not the only matter weighed by the confessor. The frequency in which a penitent may be absolved may prudentially be determined by the priest since he is the one who absolves and he is the one educated, formed, examined, and granted faculties relative to the celebration of this sacrament precisely for the making of these determinations. There is a reason why the bishop is admonished to use an extreme of care in the granting of faculties – and also concerning the withdrawing of confession faculties.
In fact, I don’t really know the custom in the United States (which seems rather different) but where I am, one to be ordained priest is most carefully and thoroughly examined on these matters by one designated by the bishop – during his studies as a seminarian (which is more a practice exam, as it were), at his ordination as transitional deacon, before his ordination as priest (which is when the recommendation is made to the bishop about any grant of faculties, as a result of these exams, which are not purely academic in nature) and then for the years in which the priest is a member of the junior clergy.
The priest or prelate doing these examinations is named by the bishop and is one who is trained and normally has taught sacramental theology, spirituality, canon law, and who has proven his competence in all matters related to the internal forum and, actually, may have also had additional training as at the apostolic penitentiary for example.
A confessor’s authority in all things is to be used judiciously…but also not timidly when a confessor needs to act decisively, such as when the penitent is approaching the sacrament too frequently or is using it in a way that is spiritually unhealthy or is approaching it in a manner not conformed with the theology of the sacrament. To do otherwise is not being faithful to the sacred entrustment given him, by means of his faculties as a confessor, by the Church.
Priests are required by canon law to hear confessions whenever asked and it will not be seriously inconvenient.
No. You are incorrect here as well. First, it is a priest with the
cura animarum who is required to hear confession provided that the person is properly disposed and the request is timely…and the determination as to whether the request is timely is made by the confessor using the norms established by his bishop and addressed in his formation.
In every other instance, even the priest with the
cura animarum may decline. Priests who do not hold the
cura animarum on the other hand are exhorted to hear confession when they receive a timely request from a properly disposed penitent – but they are, in fact, not required. At the moment of death, any priest, even one laicised, has an obligation to absolve a properly disposed penitent, and that even if reserved matters are involved.
Having agreed, however, to hear a confession…just because a penitent comes to a confessor and the confessor agrees to hear the penitent does not mean that the confessor must make a determination to absolve. The determination not to absolve may rest on one of various foundations.
As a physician of souls and as a judge, the confessor can make other disposition, including the finding that the person is endeavoring to receive the sacrament too frequently and the sacrament is to be deferred as a remedial response. This is true regarding reconciliation just as we can determine that someone who may be ill is not to be granted the anointing of the sick, however earnestly they seek it or, again, that the person who seeks Confirmation is not to be granted it presently or in the near term.
It is not the person who seeks these sacraments that is the determiner. Thus ecclesiastical authorities have the discretion granted by universal and particular law relative to the celebration of the sacraments.
He means well, but this is wrong. The spiritual masters disagree with him.
As I have had occasion to say a few times over the decades, it is not the laity or even my brother priests who get to determine my competence regarding the priesthood at this point of seniority…it is my bishop and, beyond him, the dicasteries of the Holy See. And, of course, for matters purely academic and related to the academy, those who are my peers in my fields.
I am at least well enough acquainted with the masters of the spiritual life to have been entrusted at different times with either teaching them to students preparing for the priesthood or to have been appointed a spiritual director deemed competent to companion them…to the satisfaction of members of the College of Bishops. However, this point currently being addressed relates much more to the theology of the sacrament of reconciliation, which I also taught, than it does to topics in spirituality or mystical and ascetical theology.
Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, moreover, is no longer a measure in these matters and has not been for a very long time – neither for moral theology nor for the regulation and administration of the sacraments. The application today is according to contemporary dispositions…not those of the era of Saint Alphonsus and his thoughts…which are not dispositive for the Church of today any more than I, as a contemporary confessor, would be guided by penance and its practice in the pre-Chalcedonian era.
Have I made the matter more precise for you?
